The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

I worry that there may actually be some bullshitting going on about MCA, AMCA, FGFA and other fancy acronyms. I worry that these too will go the same way as LUH, LAH, CAT and ATT or be interminably extended like MTA and MRTA. The only acronyms that survived to fruition are DPSA, ALH and LCA

The words 'Medium Combat Aircraft" is too non specific a name.

"Fifth generation" is about technologies.

What can Indian industry give the Air Force in 5 years with technology that we have right now which is completely sanction proof?

In fact the so called "CAT" - the Combat Attack Trainer was one such aircraft. But "poof" it died soon after it was conceived.

If we are going to chase windmills in terms of technology can someone please point out the size and shape of an actual fighting plane that India can make with in-house tech in 5 years? Does anyone want to hazard a guess? We are all enthusiasts and form a body of people with some knowledge of tech that india has "in hand". Why not design a virtual, imaginary fighter plane - no matter how low or high tech or mixed low and high tech and say "This is what we can do. Now." Right here on this thread? And let it not be Tejas - which we already have.

What would be the shape of the plane? Conventional with wings and tailplane? One engine? Two engines? We are good at composites. Do we make aviation grade Aluminium alloy? What radar? What sensors? It will certainly be FBW. Can we use an existing engine that we are making now? A Russian one? A western one?

shiv wrote:What can Indian industry give the Air Force in 5 years with technology that we have right now which is completely sanction proof?

Perhaps nothing...But should that be a hurdle to develop what we can... Our weakness in engines should also stop our R & D in say composites or avionics or stealth airframe?? How many nations in the world can do that? Perhaps only US and Russians... But did it deterred EADs and others from developing their fighters... At least 3 of the 6 MMRCA contenders have multi national efforts

As I said earlier, our desire to go for everything inhouse is affecting our R &D program

P Chitkara wrote:We certainly can use a western engine (GE - we are familiar with it and will start manufacturing it soon). Radar can come from Russia (Ibris?). We basically need to go the MKI route - to start with and get a frame flying soon enough.

P Chitkara wrote:We certainly can use a western engine (GE - we are familiar with it and will start manufacturing it soon). Radar can come from Russia (Ibris?). We basically need to go the MKI route - to start with and get a frame flying soon enough.

Substitution with our own systems will be the next stage.

We were and are currently manufacturing russian engines... what's wrong with using them??? I mean we already have a very good engine in the form of AL-31FP, why not build the hypothetical fighter around this engine???

Bala Vignesh wrote:We were and are currently manufacturing russian engines... what's wrong with using them??? I mean we already have a very good engine in the form of AL-31FP, why not build the hypothetical fighter around this engine???

AL31 will be good for a single engine a/c. Using it for a twin engine a/c will increase the size of the a/c to accommodate two such engines. This, in turn will push the weight towards heavy class.

That brings up a very interesting question - Do we see majority of our a/f with twin engine a/c? Twin engine a/c would mean more operational cost.

F-35 is single engine and will form the bulk of the fighter fleet for USAF in future. They have always kept smaller number of twin engine a/c compared to single engine (F15/F16 now; F22/F35 in future). So, there may be some merit in doing so after all.

vardhank wrote:Perhaps, before we go into engines, we need to define what SORT of plane we want, yes? And not just a candy-shop wish-list of attributes: what sort of plane will we need, say in a 2025-2050 time period?

I'm putting down what I think - gurus, anyone else with an opinion, feel perfectly free to disagree

I'm guessing we're going for a Hi-med-lo lineup (especially towards the end of that time-frame, when hopefully we'll come down to fewer types of fighters), with the FGFA/PAK-FA as hi, the LCA (2/3, whatever) as lo and this new fifth-gen plane as the medium level. It'll be used both by the IAF and IN (and hopefully by the IN-Marine Corps that I hope will be formed). It'll be expected to operate on its own as well, but its major role will be as a strike platform to go in under the umbrella of the FGFA.

What I'd look for (personally at least):1) Stealth - obviously, but not like the F-35, where agility and payload are compromised for LO. the approach would have to be more like the FGFA - a good degree of stealth, but within a very agile airframe.2) Supercruise3) STOVL/VTOL or at least very short take off and landing ability4) Unprepared runway ability + easy maintenance - I envision a lot of forward-base use5) Internal weapons bays DESIGNED to take projected weapons (unlike the F-35, which can't take the Meteor)6) AESA radar + IRST, other sensors + data sharing ability with new-age ground/space-based sensor systems to tackle stealth and aim standoff weapons7) The general characteristics of a strike fighter, ie decent payload, good range, good stability

vardhank wrote:Perhaps, before we go into engines, we need to define what SORT of plane we want, yes? And not just a candy-shop wish-list of attributes: what sort of plane will we need, say in a 2025-2050 time period?

I'm putting down what I think - gurus, anyone else with an opinion, feel perfectly free to disagree

I'm guessing we're going for a Hi-med-lo lineup (especially towards the end of that time-frame, when hopefully we'll come down to fewer types of fighters), with the FGFA/PAK-FA as hi, the LCA (2/3, whatever) as lo and this new fifth-gen plane as the medium level. It'll be used both by the IAF and IN (and hopefully by the IN-Marine Corps that I hope will be formed). It'll be expected to operate on its own as well, but its major role will be as a strike platform to go in under the umbrella of the FGFA.

What I'd look for (personally at least):1) Stealth - obviously, but not like the F-35, where agility and payload are compromised for LO. the approach would have to be more like the FGFA - a good degree of stealth, but within a very agile airframe.2) Supercruise3) STOVL/VTOL or at least very short take off and landing ability4) Unprepared runway ability + easy maintenance - I envision a lot of forward-base use5) Internal weapons bays DESIGNED to take projected weapons (unlike the F-35, which can't take the Meteor)6) AESA radar + IRST, other sensors + data sharing ability with new-age ground/space-based sensor systems to tackle stealth and aim standoff weapons7) The general characteristics of a strike fighter, ie decent payload, good range, good stability

What else?

Plenty. 8 - 10,hard points9) A good internal gun with plenty of ammo, not the 70 rounds which were carried by some USSR ac, SU 7, I think10) Built in laser range finder, target designator11) Single engine for "low end" ac, twin engine for "med end"12) In flight refuelling as well as buddy refuelling

Is supercruise really required ? It may be difficult to have a VTOL ac, rather the ac should be suitable for STOL from makeshift runaways.

I suggest that there should be 2 types on the same platform, one for air defence / intercepter / CAP etc and another for ground attack

vardhank wrote:What I'd look for (personally at least):1) Stealth - obviously, but not like the F-35, where agility and payload are compromised for LO. the approach would have to be more like the FGFA - a good degree of stealth, but within a very agile airframe.2) Supercruise3) STOVL/VTOL or at least very short take off and landing ability4) Unprepared runway ability + easy maintenance - I envision a lot of forward-base use5) Internal weapons bays DESIGNED to take projected weapons (unlike the F-35, which can't take the Meteor)6) AESA radar + IRST, other sensors + data sharing ability with new-age ground/space-based sensor systems to tackle stealth and aim standoff weapons7) The general characteristics of a strike fighter, ie decent payload, good range, good stability

What else?

1) Agree.. We should not sacrifice on payload.. agility is secondary for a strike platform, relatively... 2) May not be required.. I remember reading an article in which the author had opined that supercruise is overrated.. what is more useful is the transonic acceleration of the engine..3) STOL should be enough.. If the IN is operating this plane it would be from the CATOBAR equipped IAC2... Vertical landing is not required at all..4) Accepted completely..5) Accepted completely..6) AESA radar may not be necessary for a strike platform, a decenet PESA radar should be suffice.. IRST with integral laser range finder and a podded laser designator and tracker should be fine....

vardhank wrote:Perhaps, before we go into engines, we need to define what SORT of plane we want, yes? And not just a candy-shop wish-list of attributes: what sort of plane will we need, say in a 2025-2050 time period?

I'm putting down what I think - gurus, anyone else with an opinion, feel perfectly free to disagree

I'm guessing we're going for a Hi-med-lo lineup (especially towards the end of that time-frame, when hopefully we'll come down to fewer types of fighters), with the FGFA/PAK-FA as hi, the LCA (2/3, whatever) as lo and this new fifth-gen plane as the medium level. It'll be used both by the IAF and IN (and hopefully by the IN-Marine Corps that I hope will be formed). It'll be expected to operate on its own as well, but its major role will be as a strike platform to go in under the umbrella of the FGFA.

What I'd look for (personally at least):1) Stealth - obviously, but not like the F-35, where agility and payload are compromised for LO. the approach would have to be more like the FGFA - a good degree of stealth, but within a very agile airframe.2) Supercruise3) STOVL/VTOL or at least very short take off and landing ability4) Unprepared runway ability + easy maintenance - I envision a lot of forward-base use5) Internal weapons bays DESIGNED to take projected weapons (unlike the F-35, which can't take the Meteor)6) AESA radar + IRST, other sensors + data sharing ability with new-age ground/space-based sensor systems to tackle stealth and aim standoff weapons7) The general characteristics of a strike fighter, ie decent payload, good range, good stability

What else?

Plenty. 8 - 10,hard points9) A good internal gun with plenty of ammo, not the 70 rounds which were carried by some USSR ac, SU 7, I think10) Built in laser range finder, target designator11) Single engine for "low end" ac, twin engine for "med end"12) In flight refuelling as well as buddy refuelling

Is supercruise really required ? It may be difficult to have a VTOL ac, rather the ac should be suitable for STOL from makeshift runaways.

I suggest that there should be 2 types on the same platform, one for air defence / intercepter / CAP etc and another for ground attack

K

I think seamless ability to network with other Indian forces/sensors is essential. Radar integrated into wing and body may be a way to go.

But here's a thought. Why not turn the clock back?

I mean that the change form single role to multirole came because of proliferation of designs and falling numbers of aircraft production runs causing aircraft manufacturers to become unprofitable. This is the story of the current "developed world"

Why should we follow them?

Let us design dedicated air superiority and dedicated attack aircraft and give each the best specs possible rather than compromising specs of one to allow for the other.

What would be the specs for a air dominance fighter? And the specs for one or more types of attack aircraft

Austin wrote:May be Tejas 50 - 60 % bigger with twin engine ? Will that be a worthy challenging project then some super duper high risk stealth ?

Then we have to think about whether we want to create an aircraft for the IAF or a tech-demonstrator to build our design and manufacturing capabilities. Because this would put the new A/C in the MRCA class and the IAF may well choose to build more of the MRCA instead of getting a new A/C.

Saar, what are the IAF ASRs? They want single or twin engine? They want phull eshtealth or wonley little bit? All depends on customer, btw do we even have one? Assuming we do, the course to be followed has to be one of iterative/block development. For twin engined perhaps:

TDs and initial protos with 2XM88/GE-404/Kaveri with current specs (can come in later) ~ 8 tons each will do.

Delta with cranked wing ala LCA is good to build upon perhaps consider LEVCONS like NLCA and Pakfa.

There are a few things we must keep in mind while talking about AMCA specs. This is especially in regards to the 'make a semi 5th gen fighter',use sasta Aluminium vs Carbon composites kind of arguments.1> The Armed Forces in general think of them selves as a first class , top of the line and modern force, second to none. When was the last time they accepted second rate equipment (unless it was forced down their throats), they have routinely rejected indigenous equipment because they weren't top of the line or even slightly dated. Recently I learnt that the shells of the bullets for the Chinese main assault rifles are actually made of iron rather than brass to keep costs low, and there is of course a performance penalty but for the PLA it is a compromise they are OK with. May be my knowledge is shallow but from what little i have observed I feel the Armed Forces will never accept such 'turd' world ways. There is no way that the IAF is going to OK with investing in a project that will give them only a 4++ or a --5 gen fighter in 2025, when we our self will have a full spec. 5 gen aircraft in service and more importantly so will our adversaries. 2> We are the third most powerful country in the world a fact that is not hardly recognized within or outside the country but will become unambiguous in a decades time. The size and sophistication of our military personal and armaments at that point of time should justify that else we will remain a 'major power of south Asia'. If we keep aiming low we will never match the leaders in technology forget about being the leaders. With the Tejas we leapfrogged to 4 gen tech, whats the point if we aim only to reach 4++ gen of technology in another 10-15 years?

How about a basic trainer? I still find it hard to swallow that we're going to be importing one. Though to be fair, I think HAL has proposed to develop a HTT-40 with deliveries beginning in six years. Don't know if it was sanctioned.

But coming back to the topic, I think most projects that require investment (LCA MkII & AMCA) are already receiving the attention they are due. What we need to be working on are UAVs or rather UCAVs.

If HAL can design, develop and productionalize a UCAV in the class of the Reaper, it'll be job well done. And I think that's something the paramilitary forces would welcome as well.

I would ignore that for the moment and think of BRFJR - BRF Jingo requirements.

But the catch here as far as I am concerned is that it cannot be a dream aircraft. It should be an aircraft that uses technology that we already have and can be up an flying in 5 years. That basically leaves out a whole lot of 5th gen tech. We are all accustomed to drooling over futuretech like "God's eye" and 360 degree vision etc. But we need to have a realistic assessment of what we have in house, in our pockets now. The possibility exists that if we want a flying fighter in 5 years we may not be able to go far beyond JF 17 Thundaaar. Can we?

Within the next five years, Indian industry can only give the IAF the LCA and LCA derivatives, and with existing levels of funding it will take another decade or two before it becomes sanction proof (in essence, the engine).

Since we are trying to design a new aircraft with some stealth features, I have a question for the gurus , is a nose air intake like Mig-21 inherently more stealthy since the engines are not visible as they sit behind the cockpit and do we pay huge performance penalty. The reason I am asking is having a nose air intake makes the aircraft's fuselage thin thus less draggy. Also the smaller nose cone should not be much of a problem with modern smaller radars having adequate range. The point I am trying to make is that if you have a AAM with lets say max range of 100 km, would not it be enough to have a radar with let say 150 km range. Anyway we are not going to fire the AAM at 100 km range, but more probably at 30-50 km distance. Greater distance radar coverage would be anyway provided by AWACS.

We already have been making the mig 21 for long time and should be in a position to work from it.

bmallick wrote:Since we are trying to design a new aircraft with some stealth features, I have a question for the gurus , is a nose air intake like Mig-21 inherently more stealthy since the engines are not visible as they sit behind the cockpit and do we pay huge performance penalty.

I am no guru but the radome (the green cone) is transparent to radar and the radar dish inside that cone reflects radar radiation. So although the engine face is not seen the radar itself is visible.

But wouldn't the radome of all fighters have a radar dish? Isn't that a penalty for all fighters.

Please note that I am not saying lets make a new mig-21. Since we are trying to a design a new fighter with some degree of stealth, thats why i am talking about a nose intake.

Also I agree with the point that lets go back to the basics and not try to make a multi role fighter. Lets make two versions one for air superiority and other for dunking bombs and missile. One more thing, why not have multi-role squadrons with mixed versions of the same fighter.

my new aircraft would be called CSCM - cheap stealthy cruise missile - a modular family of 3 missiles in the weight range of 500kg, 1000kg and 1500kg differing only in the fuel tank section + warhead. the heavier versions will have bigger area folding wings for more lift.

the engine being common , the heaviest version will fly 150km slower to compensate the fuel economy. the middle version 75km slower. the small version will be fastest at 800kmph.

sensor would be a tri mode (GLONASS + IIR + mmw radar package with ability to detach the costly IIR module (PnP) to save cost when attacking static targets (glonass) and just plug in ballast). the MMW radar will be used for adverse weather conditions which are plenty in the region.

both air launched and truck launched versions to exist (inclined tubes) ... a small AL stallion truck to be used for TELAR mounting 8 small missiles, 6 medium or 4 big missiles....a single command truck to control upto 16 firing TELAR trucks. reload vehicles with additional sealed tubes and a crane.

The idea for the next generation of fighter is a good one. It makes us think as to what the possible senarios that will be faced by the IAF and what are the Aircraft resources requird by the IAF to meet them. The speatrum could be of many types. Ultra high tech to ultra lowtech. Some of it can only be fuilfilled by a FGFA. But for most of the situations FGFA will be an over kill. Some of the situations can be met using an autonomous UCAV. Some will require an UCAV with man in the loop, e.g Reaper. Yet others will require a dedicated COIN aircraft. Some will reguire a regional bomber. (Think Backfire minus IFR. Prefrebly stealth)

If you get my drift, we need to look at the full spectrum of capabilities.

I will start with the very low end first. The country in future may face a situation where the TSP has failed and it is controlled by anti India warlords who are constantly launching raids in the country. They are also being beaten up by the armed forces. In this situation the FGFA is an overkill, as is most of the fast jet capability of the IAF, as the PAF is no longer able to contest the mastry of the skies. NOR is their a viable SAM threat.

In this situation what is required is a capability to keep the warlords under constant survailance and attack, Here a reaper like capability becomes very usefull. Also in addition to this the reaper will also act as the eves to a manned aircraft. The aircraft has to be very simple and basis. Minimum EW fit as it is not required. But the ability to stay over the battlefield for long periods of time and carry a decent payload, possibily in the region of 6 tons or more and an endurance of 8 at 250 km redius hours on station no refueling. The piolet will be an avaiator who can use the AC effectily with minimum training say 25 hrs of flight time. The same will be the case with the ground crew as well.

Also it should be the Maruti 800 of air in terms of Fuel effiency. Whether it is jet or not is left to the designers.

Numbers required 250 to 300.

I had initialy thought of a B 52 type capability but later discarded that approach as it may be too complicated in terms of what I was looking for.

bmallick wrote:But wouldn't the radome of all fighters have a radar dish? Isn't that a penalty for all fighters.

All fighters except, I am told, the F-22. For the F-22 the radome is transparent only to a narrow range of frequencies used by the radar itself and that range is secret. Anyhow - none of this is relevant to our JingoVimana JV-72 to be produced in 5 years.

If the stated desire is to have a combat ready a/c by 2015. Why can't/shouldn't Tejas Mk2 do that? Are we so dumb that we don't see the merits of Capability Maturity Model(CMM)? Designing & manufacturing an a/c is not some monkey trick and we have realised that the hard way! Why throw away all those experiences?

With Mk1 we obtained the capability now lets mature it! We have Tejas Mk2 and lets get moving on that......

1) make the necessary changes to its frame for F414(forget Kaveri!)2) integrate AESA(isreali, local, american, ruski...... do we need to care?)3) if astra missile is ready fine.....else we have enuff ruski stuff

bmallick wrote:Also I agree with the point that lets go back to the basics and not try to make a multi role fighter. Lets make two versions one for air superiority and other for dunking bombs and missile.

This is what I think needs to be done. The fighter version should not be constrained by the need to be an attack aircraft and vice versa.

JVKrishnan wrote:If the stated desire is to have a combat ready a/c by 2015. Why can't/shouldn't Tejas Mk2 do that? Are we so dumb that we don't see the merits of Capability Maturity Model(CMM)? Designing & manufacturing an a/c is not some monkey trick and we have realised that the hard way! Why throw away all those experiences?

No. For the purposes of this jingo exercise the idea is not to use the Tejas which will still likely be using a foreign engine in 5 years), but to use what we can order and produce right now. Which engine fits the bill. Start with that.

I think a single AL-31 engine fits the bill. It has enough thrust that a air superiority version can be designed with more than 1 thrust to weight ratio. Also it has enough grunt that a bomb truck version could easily lift enough load.

I think that AMCA is perfect design but funding is toooooooo less and it should be increased to US$ 25 Billion for realistic achievement of the project. I think that UCAV and AMCA is a realistic extenstion of LCA learning curve.

I always drool over the possibility of an aircraft with three jet engines at the vertices of an equilateral triangle with three or four stovepipe type burners placed around this configuration for added emergency power.

Ok back to the real world, How about an aircraft with a single/two conventional jet engines with one/two scramjet/ramjet type burners for emergencies/additional power. Those burners will burn ATF with ram air, will not weigh more than a few hundered kilos, will have no moving parts and will be made of super duper titanium-steel alloys.

Hats off to Shiv for putting the finger in the right place, If I were to put that bluntly, I would have been banned. Yes the time has come to stop bullshitting about Indian capabilities and actually put some meat on the table rathe than glib talk.I am no aeornautics guy. But I have seen so many Indian engineering insdustry doing wonderful things but some how we are not integrating or utilizing the individual excellence that already exists. I often get frustrated that we can make a single Rotax kind of engine for our own UAV. Long time back almost 5 years ago one o0f our esteemed member sent a PDF how HAL DRDO guys were doing some work on UAVs and nothing since then happened that went into users hands namely IAF IA or IN.

I am glad Shiv has belled the cat. Lets build the blocks here on BRF and identify the Tools machines talent required.I has said with about 25 students, 4 profs 3 CO and 4 NCOs we can design a better Gun and produce it too than Bofors.Lets do it folks...

bmallick wrote:..... lets go back to the basics and not try to make a multi role fighter. Lets make two versions one for air superiority and other for dunking bombs and missile.

This was one of my earlier suggestions.

The primary objective of the multi role aircraft is to have only one type in the air force. The IAF, follwoing the goras, wants a multi role aircraft. So that by 2020/25 IAF will have 4 - 5 multirole aircraft.

I would opt for a air defence aircraft largely based on Tejas as I think it is an excellent platform for a small aircraft.

For ground attack I would prefer a twin engined and (a few no all) two seaters.

bmallick wrote:Also I agree with the point that lets go back to the basics and not try to make a multi role fighter. Lets make two versions one for air superiority and other for dunking bombs and missile.

This is what I think needs to be done. The fighter version should not be constrained by the need to be an attack aircraft and vice versa.

Hmmmmm. Not what I think needs doing, to be honest (primarily because that cuts the Navy out completely, and I think it's the Navy that's going to be our main overseas strike arm), but ok, let's go with it.

I'm not looking at an air-superiority fighter at all - I think between the FGFA/PAK-FA, Su-30MKI and LCA we'll have that handled. What we need now is our Jaguar/Mirage/MiG-27 replacement. I'll call it the FMSF - the Future Medium Strike Fighter, just to separate it from the others.

So, we're looking more closely now at good low-level performance (does that dictate smaller wings?), plus very good payload and loiter time. Again, back to the wings, how do you reconcile smaller wings and lots of hard-points/fuel-storage space? Also, bigger internal weapons bays - so are we giving up some agility here? Definitely two seats, real-time datalink with GLONASS/Indian military satellites.

Re engines, I'd definitely look at two AL-31s here, in a plane that's much lighter and smaller than the Su-30. That would give you:1) Massive installed thrust - can compensate slightly for the loss of agility, and helps with the payload2) We can run it at less thrust than the Su-30, to make it extremely unstressed and therefore reliable and fuel-efficient3) Helps with the STOL capability I was talking about (sadly, we'd have to give the VTOL/STOVL idea as too impractical, nice as it would be)4) TVC - 3D or 2D with flat nozzles, again compensates slightly for an inherently porky airframe

Would someone else do it differently? I think I'm more or less on the right track here. And since we're more or less giving up the multi-role ability, I'm guessing the FMSF would be used only under the cover of our air-superiority fighters and not go-it-alone missions.

Maybe the F-16XL's cranked delta wing? I believe it worked extremely well for a strike fighter, and offered good space for fuel and hard-points. But maybe with horizontal stabs as well, if the aero gurus think they're needed.

[qoute]Re engines, I'd definitely look at two AL-31s here, in a plane that's much lighter and smaller than the Su-30.[/quote]

wouldn't the two eavy engines with there fuel needs, massive intakes mean a fighter almost the size of Su-30.

Regarding having dedicated fighters for air superiority & attack resulting in the Navy being forgotten, as I had said earlier, have multirole squadrons, not multirole fighters. Basically have mixed squadrons. Anyway we are already talking about IAC-I and followups having Mig-29 & N-LCA both onboard. So the navy too can have a mixed air group.

Shiv sir, can we first fix what is the role we envisage, whether we want a multirole or dedicated attack fighter or dedicated fighter.

With regards to small wings for attack aircraft and earlier discussion about not having delta wings on attack aircrafts, USN A4 had a delta wing even though it was a attack fighter. Also it was a small airplane, but with relatively large range.

bmallick wrote:[qoute] Anyway we are already talking about IAC-I and followups having Mig-29 & N-LCA both onboard. So the navy too can have a mixed air group.

Shiv sir, can we first fix what is the role we envisage, whether we want a multirole or dedicated attack fighter or dedicated fighter.

My concern with multi-aircraft Naval groups is about carrying spares and engineers/maintenance chappies for extra types of aircraft. I'd do that only with aircraft that had completely different roles (ie fighters, AWACS aircraft, stuff like that). If I can keep only one type of fighter (with a couple of variants), I'd be much happier.

Re the multi-role/dedicated-role plane, that's the first point of the debate, and by far the most important. As I said, I prefer the multi-role idea, but for now, we're going with Shiv's train of thought - it's his thread, after all.

Also, I'm sorry, I think I missed a post about what our theoretical aircraft development corporation (Bharat Rakshak Aeronatics Limited? ) can offer the IAF in five years. In that case, we're not looking at a fifth-gen fighter at all, more a twin-engined LCA optimised for ground-attack. And I'm going to chuck that idea for now - where's the fun in that?

How difficult would it be to design a fighter and have two versions one air superiority and one attack the difference between the two being in 1. avionics suite 2. Maybe the attack aircraft would use non-after burning version of the same engineThink something like Mig-23 & Mig-27

I must thank the good doctor for prescribing just what an old fighter jock would love. While all of you go all out to design a 5th gen ++ super duper fighter, I want to take a detour and come up with some thing that my pongo friends would love to see in the sky.

There is one huge battlefield that might one day call me in for offensive air support which I am unable to provide today. I need an aircraft that can operate over Wallong and Along and perhaps a hundred kilometres north of it for releasing weapons in marginal visibility and if possible even by night. I need an aircraft that will take off from Leh or Chshul with one and a half tons of ordnance and be able to operate comfortably with full load at 20000 feet or more. I want an aircraft that can have a radius of action of 200 km flying at 15000 feet above sea level.

Let me now design this beast.

Take a basic Kiran. Retain the wings/tail. Build it as light as possible using composites. Redesign the main body for a single pilot and lots of internal fuel. Give it an internal bay for carrying about 50 x 68mm or 57mm unguided rockets and four hard points fit for 350 kg class loads. Give it a light contour mapping / imaging radar slaved to an HMS. Replace the 2 machine guns of the Kiran Mk 2 with one GSh23. Give it a glass cockpit and a DARIN III fit. Give it an integral laser target designator. Power it with an unreheated Adour (as used in the Hawk). Play around with the wing structure a little to improve its low speed turning performance. See if the RCS can be reduced by tinkering with the intakes. If possible, give it one or two short range light air to air missiles carried over the wing like the Jaguar. Give it a self defence electronic suit. If the Adour is unable to lift all this load then make it really an overpowered beast by fitting an unreheated Kavery!

Produce it in 36 months. Test and certify it in the next 24 months. Produce it in large numbers. In 1962, we could not / did not use offensive air power. Let there not be a repeat of that situation.

PS. I do not foresee a dense air defence air presence in the projected hostile area. If one comes along, I shall need top cover by the air dominance fighters you all are designing.